Something strikes me as off about Google's patent in regards to being able to sue Apple but I can't quite express it in words. If it comes to me I'll try to state it clearly.

Google has no history of using patents offensively in the first place, unlike Apple or MS, so I don't personally think they'd sue Apple first anyway. Perhaps that's why we haven't seen a direct suit against Google from one of those two.

To be clear I don't see any issue with striking the first blow as Apple has been doing, and think it's naive and starry-eyed for Google to think that they should be the "nice guy", different from Microsoft, Apple or any other big tech player.

At some point they'll strike back and then everyone will start the accusations of Google saying one thing about unfair patent practices but climbing right in with their own attacks.

No. Apple has had been detecting speech on the iPhone well before that filing date. Apple has had speech detection on Mac OS since the 1980s. Siri's voice recognition is done by Nuance.

If this patent has anything unique it appears to be gestures that can active the system to detect speech. I don't know of any gestures for Siri or other systems that would not be defined as pressing a physical or virtual button.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

What if Samsung stops making the A4, A5 and A6? Wont this pretty much halt all Apple sales? this is getting out of hands.

It's base designs from other companies that Apple tweaks and then has other's fab. Samsung is not the only company that do the work. They may be the fastest or cheapest at producing Apple's quota but they aren't the only ones. On top of that i it hurt Samsung's bottom line then it's not a smart move.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

Google has no history of using patents offensively in the first place, unlike Apple or MS, so I don't personally think they'd sue Apple first anyway. Perhaps that's why we haven't seen a direct suit against Google from one of those two.

To be clear I don't see any issue with striking the first blow as Apple has been doing, and think it's naive and starry-eyed for Google to think that they should be the "nice guy", different from Microsoft, Apple or any other big tech player.

At some point they'll strike back and then everyone will start the accusations of Google saying one thing about unfair patent practices but climbing right in with their own attacks.

Google has no history because Google has no history. As Google acquires more patents they will get offensive, especially if their patents are worth protecting.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

No. Apple has had been detecting speech on the iPhone well before that filing date. Apple has had speech detection on Mac OS since the 1980s. Siri's voice recognition is done by Nuance.

If this patent has anything unique it appears to be gestures that can active the system to detect speech. I don't know of any gestures for Siri or other systems that would not be defined as pressing a physical or virtual button.

Google's application wasn't just about voice detection. It was targeting search by voice as a possible use, activated by a gesture as simple as raising the phone to your head. At least that's what I read in it. (Nearest coffee shop anyone?)

Google has no history because Google has no history. As Google acquires more patents they will get offensive, especially if their patents are worth protecting.

14 years in, and still no offensive patent infringement lawsuits (Thanks for mentioning the awkward wording Soli). I'd consider that more than a bit unusual for the market they're playing in, but perhaps you don't.

Google's application wasn't just about voice detection. It was targeting search by voice as a possible use, activated by a gesture as simple as raising the phone to your head. At least that's what I read in it. (Nearest coffee shop anyone?)

1) You make the patent sound convoluted. If it's about all those things at once I think Apple is in the clear.

2) Now that I think about Siri does activate partly by a gesture, but it still needs the proximity sensor in place in order to perceive the action is raising it to your ear to speak.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

... But I find it hard to see someone 'blatantly' snatching 45-65% more money for the products in the name of aesthetic patents. If Apple considers reducing this margin even a bit lesser, they dont have to chase Android OEMs, but would see the Apple customer base further increase exponentially. Patents are good, but only as long as they dont hurt the customers of the reach to good technology on time and at reasonable price.

They are production limited. They would sell the same number of phones but simply make less on each one.

14 years in, and still no offensive patent filings. I'd consider that more than a bit unusual for the market they're playing in, but perhaps you don't.

Offensive patent fillings? All patents fillings are defensive. Google hasn't been in the handset business for 14 years. Most of their still very limited history has been with search and ads. Let's see how Android fares when there growth rate drops from 1.1% to the naughts or even starts to shrink.

Why are triumphing a company you think has valid patents that spent time and money filing that they aren't defending? There is no altruism. There is no "don't be evil" mantra" There is the goal of survival, of success, of profits.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Offensive patent fillings? All patents fillings are defensive. Google hasn't been in the handset business for 14 years. Most of their still very limited history has been with search and ads. Let's see how Android fares when there growth rate drops from 1.1% to the naughts or even starts to shrink.

Why are triumphing a company you think has valid patents that spent time and money filing that they are defending? There is no altruism. There is no "don't be evil" mantra" There is the goal of survival, of success, of profits.

You know what I meant, and why are you limiting them to the handset business?
Plus I did say I don't have an issue with first attacks. It's Google's avoidance of them that's silly.

I could have crafted the verbiage a bit more clearly tho. Of course a filling is defensive. Gotta keep those nasty cavities at bay.

What if Samsung stops making the A4, A5 and A6? Wont this pretty much halt all Apple sales? this is getting out of hands.

Pretty much a stupid move. What kind of message does that send to the rest of Samsungs customers? Meanwhile Apple takes some of their 100 billion and ramps up production with TSMC or another chip maker.

Standard Groklaw spin. You have to understand Groklaw's motives to understand that they are as "clean" as Florian Mueller's.

Everyone knows that Android uses Dalvik. That is not a revelation. It is claimed that Dalvik infringes on Suns's (now Oracle's) IP. That is the point of the suit.

I fully understand that one of the Groklaw's admin's has a bone to pick with Florian, and with a somewhat valid reason IMO after a dishonest accusation against her when he was advocating for MS a few years back. . .

Pretty much a stupid move. What kind of message does that send to the rest of Samsungs customers? Meanwhile Apple takes some of their 100 billion and ramps up production with TSMC or another chip maker.

The reason why they didn't go to TSMC for the A6 is because they didn't meet specs. Samsung is the most reliable manufacturer in the business.

But it's doubtful Samsung will do anything drastic because they've already made investments in their Austin factory to ramp up production for Apple.

We all talk about the patent system needing to be reformed but I hear very little talk about what needs to be changed, and even less about what it needed to be changed to.

Personally I think code should be patentable. However, I think that it also has a lot in common with copyrighted material and therefore needs it's own system -or- it's own set of rules within the patent system. Beyond that I have no opinion stupid or otherwise about what this should be or how this should be enacted.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

We all talk about the patent system needing to be reformed but I hear very little talk about what needs to be changed, and even less about what it needed to be changed to.

Personally I think code should be patentable. However, I think that it also has a lot in common with copyrighted material and therefore needs it's own system -or- it's own set of rules within the patent system. Beyond that I have no opinion stupid or otherwise about what this should be or how this should be enacted.

They already reformed it last year as much as they're going to. They just didn't improve it IMO

I fully understand that one of the Groklaw's admin's has a bone to pick with Florian, and with a somewhat valid reason IMO after a dishonest accusation against her when he was advocating for MS a few years back. . .

Bad blood goes both ways between those two sites. Me, I am not a software socialist like the Groklaw team and believe programmers have the F***KING right to profit from their work. That said, many software patents are excessively broad and should cover very specific methods of operation and you need to have skin in the game to play. IP holding companies (IV for example) should only be able to get damages for lost slaes of product they do not make. In other words, $0.00.

Apple doesn't seem to know how to innovate anymore and has to sue it's competition because they are far more advanced than they are.

Wow, the stunning intellect you've presented in your first ever post on AI leaves me wondering how this forum ever existed without you. May I please have a link to all your online social portholes so that I may follow you and gaze with amazement at your wisdom.

If you want to know the latest on the B&N case, or MS's troubles with Novell, you pretty much have to depend on Groklaw since Florian is going to ignore anything detrimental to MS as much as possible. Anything not anti-Google? Probably still wasting your time at FOSSPatents. If it's Apple he's been known to flip-flop lately. Perhaps depending on how his "clients" would be affected?

It would be nice to have a site that just gave it to us straight, and PatentlyO is as close as I've seen. They just don't follow the tech industry that thoroughly

I did not realize how awesome the Galaxy Nexus is, but if Apple is that worried about this phone. I will definitely have to go check it out. Thanks for letting me know Apple!

I'm sure Apple is having many sleepless night because of the awesomeness of that phone. What are the sales figures again? Strange, haven't seen any. With a completely redesigned iPhone 5 launching this year, on the back of 37+million supply-constrained quarterly sales without even a redesigned phone, I'm sure they're shuddering.

Strange there are people who actually SUPPORT these lawsuit patents although they all work against consumers and developers.

Also, how many people actually used Android 4.0 instead of shooting it down based on perceptions of earlier versions?

Either way, chances are Google cannot openly file a lawsuit on infringes since Android is on open source license whereas Apple tries to patent almost every aspect in iOS. Don't forget you are talking about a company who tried to patent auto-correct.

Offensive patent fillings? All patents fillings are defensive. Google hasn't been in the handset business for 14 years. Most of their still very limited history has been with search and ads. Let's see how Android fares when there growth rate drops from 1.1% to the naughts or even starts to shrink.

Why are triumphing a company you think has valid patents that spent time and money filing that they aren't defending? There is no altruism. There is no "don't be evil" mantra" There is the goal of survival, of success, of profits.

Well if google thinks like me then they will have a different outlook. I think in terms of sports and sportsmanship.
If you are playing a game of Basketball. If the opposing team starts using your tactics, you should not go running to the ref asking them to stop. You adept to it. If they start winning you should not try to stuff money in the refs pocket you should play harder to win.

So I do not think if androids growth starts to stagger or even start to dissipate that Google will start to sue. I think they will step up their game to adept to the market needs and do something to lure people back.

Is it really necessary to quote Mueller in every article related to these patent cases? He's not an expert, there's plenty other articles on these news from traditional outlets that we can quote, there's no benefit to quote this MSFT hired gun other than helping to promote this guy.

We all talk about the patent system needing to be reformed but I hear very little talk about what needs to be changed, and even less about what it needed to be changed to.

Personally I think code should be patentable. However, I think that it also has a lot in common with copyrighted material and therefore needs it's own system -or- it's own set of rules within the patent system. Beyond that I have no opinion stupid or otherwise about what this should be or how this should be enacted.

Code is patentable in the sense that algorithms implemented in code is.

Well if google thinks like me then they will have a different outlook. I think in terms of sports and sportsmanship.
If you are playing a game of Basketball. If the opposing team starts using your tactics, you should not go running to the ref asking them to stop. You adept to it. If they start winning you should not try to stuff money in the refs pocket you should play harder to win.

So I do not think if androids growth starts to stagger or even start to dissipate that Google will start to sue. I think they will step up their game to adept to the market needs and do something to lure people back.

True, true.

But if the opposing team start wearing your jerseys you start screaming bloody murder to the ref, eh?

Google probably don't sue because they're the one doing all the stealing.

Steve Job's vision was so forward thinking that he used to park in disabled spots before he became sick.

Wow, the stunning intellect you've presented in your first ever post on AI leaves me wondering how this forum ever existed without you. May I please have a link to all your online social portholes so that I may follow you and gaze with amazement at your wisdom.

The reason why they didn't go to TSMC for the A6 is because they didn't meet specs. Samsung is the most reliable manufacturer in the business.

But it's doubtful Samsung will do anything drastic because they've already made investments in their Austin factory to ramp up production for Apple.

Yes I heard rumors it was TSMC missing specs. But we don't know for sure. It could have just been Samsung under bid TSMC. Sure short term Apple would be hurt but like I said, Apple takes a chunk of their 100 billion and invests it into factories for TSMC or whoever and it's business as usual. What people fail to understand is Apple has locked down contracts with All of their suppliers. Samsung would probably have to pay a massive penalty for missing any "quota" due to "manufacturing difficulties" or whatever they call the reason for not supplying Apple their parts. If Samsung were to refuse any future contracts with Apple once again Apple would be hurt short term but guaranteed they would find another manufacturer and it would quickly be business as usual again. ANY company can make the chips for Apple. Apple owns the design. My opinion is Apple goes with Samsung because like you said, Samsung is the most reliable manufacturer in the business. Samsung is the most cost efficient manufacturer in the business. But make no mistake. They are NOT the ONLY manufacturer in the business. Push comes to shove, Apple spends the money and builds factories capable of duplicating Samsungs reliability. I agree with you tho, Samsung isn't going to do anything drastic.

Ok first of all it is no secret that I tend to lean more at Google. I personally own a Galaxy Nexus as my daily phone and a Galaxy Tab 10.1 for my tablet. But I also own a iPod touch 4g and own a decent amount of stock in Apple and Google.
I am also a real true to the core tech buff. I love technology in general. I want to see companies come out with new and great things. I would LOVE to see Apple go head to head with the best Google comes up with (Right now, ICS on the Nexus) and let the best phone win. The Nexus is NOTHING like any Apple product. It does not look like, feel like, nor work in anyway shape or form like iOS. There is no way you can confuse it. I want to see Apple do something new and different. However at this point, I think they are out of steam. Look at the launch of the past couple iOS's. Almost every feature has been a direct copy of its competitor. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that is a bad thing. You can take someone else's idea and improve on it. That is how we move ahead in the world. Apple did not come up with the touch screen smart phone. They took someone else's idea and improved it. Came up with better marketing which was better for everyone. Now they have this idea that they are the only ones that should have it now.
I would LOVE to see Apple to come out with something great and push innovation farther. That is win win for everyone. However the trend they are doing is looking like that isn't going to happen anytime soon. I hope for my stock sake, and my thirst for tech, they do.

As for the people here blindly saying go Apple without actually looking at both the merits of the case, as well as look at the competing phone, I would urge you to head to your local Verizon store and at least check it out. If you can honestly say it looks or acts anything like an iPhone from an objective point of view....then you win.

Standard Groklaw spin. You have to understand Groklaw's motives to understand that they are as "clean" as Florian Mueller's.

Everyone knows that Android uses Dalvik. That is not a revelation. It is claimed that Dalvik infringes on Suns's (now Oracle's) IP. That is the point of the suit.

Back in the mid-90s, the Mosaic people at the NSCC sued MS for code theft after Internet Explorer 3 was released. MS pointed out that while they had used licensed Mosaic code in versions 1 and 2, version 3 was completely MS code, and written so from scratch. A court-selected expert compared the MS code to the original Mosaic code, and was able to demonstrate the former was at best a line-by-line translation of the latter. MS lost.

Ok first of all it is no secret that I tend to lean more at Google. I personally own a Galaxy Nexus as my daily phone and a Galaxy Tab 10.1 for my tablet. But I also own a iPod touch 4g and own a decent amount of stock in Apple and Google.

..

As for the people here blindly saying go Apple without actually looking at both the merits of the case, as well as look at the competing phone, I would urge you to head to your local Verizon store and at least check it out. If you can honestly say it looks or acts anything like an iPhone from an objective point of view....then you win.

Ok first of all it is no secret that I tend to lean more at Google. I personally own a Galaxy Nexus as my daily phone and a Galaxy Tab 10.1 for my tablet. But I also own a iPod touch 4g and own a decent amount of stock in Apple and Google.
I am also a real true to the core tech buff. I love technology in general. I want to see companies come out with new and great things. I would LOVE to see Apple go head to head with the best Google comes up with (Right now, ICS on the Nexus) and let the best phone win. The Nexus is NOTHING like any Apple product. It does not look like, feel like, nor work in anyway shape or form like iOS. There is no way you can confuse it. I want to see Apple do something new and different. However at this point, I think they are out of steam. Look at the launch of the past couple iOS's. Almost every feature has been a direct copy of its competitor. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that is a bad thing. You can take someone else's idea and improve on it. That is how we move ahead in the world. Apple did not come up with the touch screen smart phone. They took someone else's idea and improved it. Came up with better marketing which was better for everyone. Now they have this idea that they are the only ones that should have it now.
I would LOVE to see Apple to come out with something great and push innovation farther. That is win win for everyone. However the trend they are doing is looking like that isn't going to happen anytime soon. I hope for my stock sake, and my thirst for tech, they do.

As for the people here blindly saying go Apple without actually looking at both the merits of the case, as well as look at the competing phone, I would urge you to head to your local Verizon store and at least check it out. If you can honestly say it looks or acts anything like an iPhone from an objective point of view....then you win.

Genuine question here:

What innovations do you think Google has brought to the table recently?

Steve Job's vision was so forward thinking that he used to park in disabled spots before he became sick.